Primitive Element theorem, permutations Let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...\alpha_n)$, where the $\alpha_i$ are the roots of some irreducible polynomial (and hence they are pairwaise distinct since the polynomial is separable). Then $K/\mathbb{Q}$ is a finite extension. By the primitive element theorem there exists a $\alpha$ such that $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) = K$. Galois ("Sur les conditions de resolubilite des equations par radicaux", Lemme II; see here) was able (without proof) to choose $\alpha = u_1 \alpha_1 + \cdots + u_n \alpha_n$ with $u_i \in \mathbb{Q}$ such that all the elements $\sigma(\alpha) := u_1 \alpha_{\sigma(1)} + \cdots + u_n \alpha_{\sigma(n)}$ are distinct for every permutation $\sigma$ of the symmetric group. Distinct in this sense means that $\sigma(\alpha) \neq \tau(\alpha)$ for different $\sigma, \tau \in S_n$. Is this always true and if so, does somebody have a reference for this? 
 A: Yes, it is true. The following more general fact is true:
Theorem 1. Let $\mathbf{k}$ be an infinite field. Let $V$ be a
$\mathbf{k}$-vector space. Let $v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{n}$ be finitely many
distinct elements of $V$. Then, there exists some $\left(  a_{1},a_{2}
,\ldots,a_{n}\right)  \in\mathbf{k}^{n}$ such that the $n!$ elements
$a_{\sigma\left(  1\right)  }v_{1}+a_{\sigma\left(  2\right)  }v_{2}
+\cdots+a_{\sigma\left(  n\right)  }v_{n}$, for $\sigma$ ranging over the
symmetric group $S_{n}$, are pairwise distinct.
[Notice that my notations are different from yours. My $\mathbf{k}$, $V$,
$v_{i}$ and $a_{i}$ correspond to your $\mathbb{Q}$, $K$, $\alpha_{i}$ and
$u_{i}$, respectively (but of course, my setting is more general).]
The main tool for proving Theorem 1 is the following theorem, which doubles as
a well-known exercise:
Theorem 2. Let $\mathbf{k}$ be an infinite field. Let $V$ be a
finite-dimensional $\mathbf{k}$-vector space. Then, $V$ cannot be written as a
union of finitely many proper subspaces of $V$. (A proper subspace of $V$
means a $\mathbf{k}$-vector subspace of $V$ distinct from $V$.)
Theorem 2 is proven in many places; for example, see
A finite-dimensional vector space cannot be covered by finitely many proper subspaces? or (for a stronger statement)
If a field $F$ is such that $\left|F\right|>n-1$ why is $V$ a vector space over $F$ not equal to the union of $n$ proper subspaces of $V$ or (also for a stronger statement)
A vector space over $R$ is not a countable union of proper subspaces or https://mathoverflow.net/q/26/ .
Proof of Theorem 1. Let $G$ be the set $\left\{  \left(  \sigma,\tau\right)
\in S_{n}\times S_{n}\ \mid\ \sigma\neq\tau\right\}  $. Clearly, the set $G$
is finite (since $S_{n}$ is finite).
The $\mathbf{k}$-vector space $\mathbf{k}^n$ is finite-dimensional.
Hence, Theorem 2 (applied to $\mathbf{k}^n$ instead of $V$)
shows that $\mathbf{k}^n$ cannot be written
as a union of finitely many proper subspaces of $\mathbf{k}^n$.
In other words, any union of finitely many proper subspaces of
$\mathbf{k}^n$ must be a proper subset of $\mathbf{k}^n$.
For every $\sigma\in S_{n}$, we define a map $v_{\sigma}:\mathbf{k}
^{n}\rightarrow V$ as follows: For any $\left(  a_{1},a_{2},\ldots
,a_{n}\right)  \in\mathbf{k}^{n}$, we set $v_{\sigma}\left(  a_{1}
,a_{2},\ldots,a_{n}\right)  =\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}a_{\sigma\left(  i\right)
}v_{i}$. This map $v_{\sigma}$ is $\mathbf{k}$-linear.
Now, let $\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G$. We shall show that
$\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ is a proper subspace
of $\mathbf{k}^n$.
Indeed, the map $v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}$ is $\mathbf{k}$-linear (since
$v_{\sigma}$ and $v_{\tau}$ are $\mathbf{k}$-linear), and thus
$\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ is a $\mathbf{k}
$-vector subspace of $\mathbf{k}^{n}$.
Moreover, $\sigma\neq\tau$ (since $\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G$). Assume
(for the sake of contradiction) that $\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma
}-v_{\tau}\right)  =\mathbf{k}^{n}$. Thus, $v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}=0$, so that
$v_{\sigma}=v_{\tau}$.
Let $g\in\left\{  1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  $.
We shall use the notation $\delta_{u,v}$ for the element $
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if }u=v;\\
0, & \text{if }u\neq v
\end{cases}
\in\mathbf{k}$ whenever $u$ and $v$ are two objects. For every permutation
$\pi\in S_{n}$, we have
$v_{\pi}\left(  \delta_{1,g},\delta_{2,g},\ldots,\delta_{n,g}\right)
=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\underbrace{\delta_{\pi\left(  i\right)  ,g}}
_{=\delta_{i,\pi^{-1}\left(  g\right)  }}v_{i}$ (by the definition of $v_{\pi
}$)
(1) $=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\delta_{i,\pi^{-1}\left(  g\right)  }
v_{i}=v_{\pi^{-1}\left(  g\right)  }$.
Applying (1) to $\pi=\sigma$, we obtain
(2) $v_{\sigma}\left(  \delta_{1,g},\delta_{2,g},\ldots,\delta
_{n,g}\right)  =v_{\sigma^{-1}\left(  g\right)  }$.
Applying (1) to $\pi=\tau$, we obtain $v_{\tau}\left(  \delta_{1,g}
,\delta_{2,g},\ldots,\delta_{n,g}\right)  =v_{\tau^{-1}\left(  g\right)  }$.
Since $v_{\sigma}=v_{\tau}$, this rewrites as $v_{\sigma}\left(  \delta
_{1,g},\delta_{2,g},\ldots,\delta_{n,g}\right)  =v_{\tau^{-1}\left(  g\right)
}$. Comparing this with (2), we obtain $v_{\sigma^{-1}\left(  g\right)
}=v_{\tau^{-1}\left(  g\right)  }$. Since $v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{n}$ are
distinct, this shows that $\sigma^{-1}\left(  g\right)  =\tau^{-1}\left(
g\right)  $.
Now, let us forget that we fixed $g$. We thus have shown that $\sigma
^{-1}\left(  g\right)  =\tau^{-1}\left(  g\right)  $ for every $g\in\left\{
1,2,\ldots,n\right\}  $. In other words, $\sigma^{-1}=\tau^{-1}$. In other
words, $\sigma=\tau$. This contradicts $\sigma\neq\tau$. This contradiction
proves that our assumption (that $\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma
}-v_{\tau}\right)  =\mathbf{k}^{n}$) was wrong. Hence, $\operatorname*{Ker}
\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  \neq\mathbf{k}^{n}$. Since
$\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ is a $\mathbf{k}
$-vector subspace of $\mathbf{k}^{n}$, this yields that $\operatorname*{Ker}
\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ is a proper subspace of $\mathbf{k}^{n}$.
Now, let us forget that we fixed $\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  $. Thus, for
every $\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G$, the set $\operatorname*{Ker}\left(
v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ is a proper subspace of $\mathbf{k}^{n}$. Hence,
$\bigcup_{\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G}\operatorname*{Ker}\left(
v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ is a union of finitely many proper subspaces of
$\mathbf{k}^n$ (since $G$ is finite).
Therefore, $\bigcup_{\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)
\in G}\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ must be a
proper subset of $\mathbf{k}^n$ (since any union of finitely many proper
subspaces of $\mathbf{k}^n$ must be a proper subset of $\mathbf{k}^n$).
In other words, there exists some $a\in \mathbf{k}^n$ such that
$a\notin\bigcup_{\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G}
\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $. Consider this $a$.
We have $a\notin\bigcup_{\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G}\operatorname*{Ker}
\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $. In other words,
(3) $a\notin\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $ for
every $\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G$.
Now, let $\sigma$ and $\tau$ be two distinct elements of $S_{n}$. Thus,
$\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in S_{n}\times S_{n}$ and $\sigma\neq\tau$. In
other words, $\left(  \sigma,\tau\right)  \in G$. Hence, (3) shows that
$a\notin\operatorname*{Ker}\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  $. In other
words, $\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  \left(  a\right)  \neq0$. Hence,
$0\neq\left(  v_{\sigma}-v_{\tau}\right)  \left(  a\right)  =v_{\sigma}\left(
a\right)  -v_{\tau}\left(  a\right)  $, so that $v_{\sigma}\left(  a\right)
\neq v_{\tau}\left(  a\right)  $.
Let us forget that we fixed $\sigma$ and $\tau$. We thus have shown that
$v_{\sigma}\left(  a\right)  \neq v_{\tau}\left(  a\right)  $ for any two
distinct elements $\sigma$ and $\tau$ of $S_{n}$. In other words,
(4) the $n!$ elements $v_{\sigma}\left(  a\right)  $, for $\sigma$ ranging
over the symmetric group $S_{n}$, are pairwise distinct.
Now, let us write $a$ in the form $\left(  a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{n}\right)  $.
Then, for every $\sigma\in S_{n}$, we have
$v_{\sigma}\left(  a\right)  =v_{\sigma}\left(  a_{1},a_{2},\ldots
,a_{n}\right)  =\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}a_{\sigma\left(  i\right)  }
v_{i}=a_{\sigma\left(  1\right)  }v_{1}+a_{\sigma\left(  2\right)  }
v_{2}+\cdots+a_{\sigma\left(  n\right)  }v_{n}$.
Hence, the statement (4) rewrites as follows: The $n!$ elements
$a_{\sigma\left(  1\right)  }v_{1}+a_{\sigma\left(  2\right)  }v_{2}
+\cdots+a_{\sigma\left(  n\right)  }v_{n}$, for $\sigma$ ranging over the
symmetric group $S_{n}$, are pairwise distinct. This proves Theorem 1.
$\blacksquare$
A: Thanks Darij Grinberg. I found another proof, but am unsure if it is correct or if I have missed some detail:
Let $x_1,\cdots, x_n$ be transzendental over $\mathbb{C}$. For $\sigma,\tau \in S_n$ we have the following equivalent statements (with $u_1,\cdots, u_n \in \mathbb{Q}$):
$ u_1 \alpha_{\sigma(1)}+\cdots+u_n\alpha_{\sigma(n)} = u_1 \alpha_{\tau(1)}+\cdots+u_n\alpha_{\tau(n)}$
$ \sum_{i} \alpha_i ( u_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} - u_{\tau^{-1}(i)} ) = 0$
$(u_1,\cdots,u_n)$ is a zero of the polynomial $\sum_{i} \alpha_i ( x_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} - x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} ) $
With other words: 
All 
$ u_1 \alpha_{\sigma(1)}+\cdots+u_n\alpha_{\sigma(n)}$ are pairwise distinct exactly when $(u_1,\cdots,u_n)$ is not a zero of the polynomial
$\prod_{\sigma,\tau \in S_n, \sigma \neq \tau} \sum_{i} \alpha_i ( x_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} - x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} ) $
The polynomial thus constructed might have coefficients not in $\mathbb{Q}$.
But it is not the zero polynomial:
If it was we would find $\sigma,\tau \in S_n$ , $\sigma \neq \tau$ such that:
$x_1 (\alpha_{\sigma(1)}-\alpha_{\tau(1)}) +\cdots+ x_1 (\alpha_{\sigma(n)}-\alpha_{\tau(n)}) = 0$
Because the $x_i$ are transcendental over $\mathbb{C}$ it follows that
$\alpha_{\sigma(i)} = \alpha_{\tau(i)}$ 
and becaus $\sigma \neq \tau$ we must have $\alpha_i = \alpha_j$ for $i\neq j$ contradicting the fact that the $\alpha_i$ are pairwise distinct.
Now consider the polynomial 
$p(x_1,\cdots,x_n) = \prod_{\gamma \in S_n}(\prod_{\sigma,\tau \in S_n, \sigma \neq \tau} \sum_{i} \alpha_i ( x_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} - x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} ))$
It has the polynomial from above as a factor ($\gamma = 1$) and since it is symmetric in the zeros $\alpha_i$ of some other polynomial with rational coefficients, it has also rational coefficients.
Suppose there does not exist $(u_1,...,u_n)$ such that the $\alpha_i$ are not pairwise distinct. Then $(u_1,...,u_n)$ must be a zero of $p(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$. Hence the polynomial with rational coefficients $p(x_1,...,x_n)$ has the property that every $(u_1,...,u_n)$ is a zero of this polynomial. But then this polynomial must be the zero polynomial (Cor. 1.7, S.176 Lang, Algebra), contradicting what we have proved above.
